If you're
concerned about a threat to your neighborhood or environment
anywhere in the USA then contact CEDS at 410-654-3021
(call-text) or Help@ceds.org for an initial no-cost discussion of strategy options.

Community & Environmental Defense Services (CEDS) has
refined a new approach that triples citizen success in resolving concerns
about land use changes and other projects impacting a neighborhood or
the environment. We call this approach
Equitable Solutions. This webpage will get you started in
applying Equitable Solutions to your case. But if you're
facing an imminent threat and time is critical then please feel free
to request an emergency strategy analysis by calling CEDS at 410-654-3021.

An Equitable Solution is one which fully
resolves citizen concerns while allowing the applicant to get most of what
they want. Most savvy applicants will quickly adopt the solution,
assuming it truly is equitable. Those that don't face the prospect of
being viewed as unreasonable by the press, elected officials, and the public
at large. This consequence has proven far more effective in
allowing citizens to win these disputes when compared to the traditional
threat of legal action alone.

While Equitable Solutions does not work with all issues,
it does with most. For those few projects so badly planned that
impacts cannot be resolved, the CEDSSmart Legal
Strategiesapproachmakes it ten times more likely
the project will not be approved.

For land trusts, nonprofits, and other organizations
with
a long term interest in responsible growth and environmental management,
Equitable Solutions also:

expands the base of public (voter) support for
responsible growth management;

increases membership and the number of active
volunteers supporting grass-roots groups; and

leads to more citizens becoming highly-effective
leaders at the grass-roots level and in appointed or elected positions.

For elected officials and other decision-makers,
Equitable Solutions prevents those absurd situations where one is
forced to chose between that which is popular and that which is not.
Instead, officials are asked to support a solution which safeguards their
constituents and is fair to the applicant.

Finally, for development companies and other applicants,
Equitable Solutions offers a way to identify and correct those aspects
of a project that generate public opposition. The end result is a better
project that proceeds more swiftly through the review and permitting process
while leaving a very positive impression with decision-makers.

An Equitable Solution is that which resolves
concerns about a project while allowing the applicant to achieve their
goals. Following are a few real-life examples:

Viewshed:Those living next to a 3-acre
forest were told it would never be developed when they bought their homes.
But policy shifts over time eventually allow the property to be developed.
After researching all of their strategy options, including stopping this
by-right project, the neighbors negotiate a 100-foot, densely landscaped
buffer rather then the required 50-foot buffer. The enhanced buffer
preserves their forest view. In exchange the neighbors testify in
support of the project, which bolsters the applicant's image in ways that pays
them back many times over with this and future projects.

Stormwater: Downstream property
owners are concerned a headwater housing project will degrade
fishing, other recreation and lower property value. They learn
of innovative Best Management Practices which take up less space and are far
more effective in protecting water quality. They show the applicant
how the BMPs can actually reduce development costs and even allow another
house to be built. The citizens agree to urge local elected officials
to permit the use the innovative BMPs. If all goes well, the project
brings about a net reduction in pollution loads to the waterway.

Traffic: Those living on a small
court learn of a proposal to extend the court as part of a large
residential development project. As above, they explore all of their
options including an attempt to kill the project. But they learn of
another possible access point which could serve as the main entry into the
residential project. The developer still needs a second means of
access for emergency vehicles. The residents learn that a gate
could be placed across the extended court so fire, ambulance and police can
have access, but no one else. The applicant realizes this option can
actually reduce development costs and avoid a lengthy legal battle.
The court residents and applicant jointly go before the decision-making body and
request approval of the gate option. Approval is granted.

Again, the three preceding examples are all from real
life situations. In fact, CEDS provided the expertise needed to identify and
negotiate the adoption of all three. In each example, there were a
dozen or more potential Equitable Solutions. Some may have
been nearly as effective as that selected while others only appeared to
work. Identifying these optimum solutions can be the most challenging
part of this approach. In the next section we'll introduce you to the
How To of Equitable Solutions.

For 40 years, CEDS president
Richard Klein has been helping people throughout the nation resolve their
concerns about proposed development projects. From this unique
experience, he's found that most of the impacts which prompt people to
oppose development can be resolved without killing the project. Of
course, these are Equitable Solutions.

For the most part, the actual Equitable Solution
is technical. On rare occasions, a nontechnical solution is available,
such as purchasing a proposed development site. But, again, this is
the rare exception.

To find Equitable Solutions you need access to
professionals with the right expertise: civil engineering, landscape
architecture, urban planning, etc. But citizens face three major
problems in gaining access to these experts:

For the most part they make their living servicing
the development industry and won't take your call;

If they do agree to help their fees are usually
more then citizens can afford; and

There's a tendency to recommend solutions which the
applicant likes, but do not fully resolve impacts, particularly over a
long period of time.

CEDS has taken a number of steps to make life easier for
individuals and associations seeking Equitable Solutions,

First, to help you determine how a project may impact
your quality of life we prepared a four-page:

Second, we wrote a 300-page book called How To Win Land Development
Issues. This book and many other CEDS documents are available
free for download on our publications webpage.
Chapter 2 describes how to research
Equitable Solutions in general. Chapters 3 to 26 address in
detail the 24 most common impacts associated with development. Each
chapter expands on the checklist and suggests common corrective
measures.

Third, if you are seeking to preserve your home,
neighborhood or the environment from impacts then CEDS will review project
plans free of charge. During this quick initial review we'll identify
potential impacts and Equitable Solutions. We'll then share
the results with you and your allies via conference call. Again,
there's no charge for this initial review.

Fourth, if you have a question we'd be delighted to
answer it free by phone: 410-654-3021 (toll-free nationwide).
E-mails don't work so well for us since it tends to take much more time to
get your core concerns.

Earlier we cited three issues with gaining access to
professional expertise. Allow us to now qualify this caution. If
during the initial negotiation process described below you sense the
applicant really wants to find an Equitable Solution, then ask them
to have their consultants recommend one or more options. But
before accepting an option check it out first by giving CEDS a call.
We'll be delighted to give your our thoughts on how well the solution will
work and what you can do to verify effectiveness.

Additionally, larger jurisdictions have full-time staff including engineers,
planners and other professionals. These staff can be an extremely
valuable source of Equitable Solutions. However, in more
rural areas consulting firms may provide functions, like plan review,
normally performed by staff in urban jurisdictions. These firms may
also provide consulting services to the development industry which could
create a conflict of interest when it comes to advising citizens on possible
Equitable Solutions.

CEDS research indicates that about 25% of citizens
resolve their development-related concerns by negotiating with the
applicant. These citizens never hire a lawyer or other professionals.
Again, they simply meet face-to-face with the applicant to find a solution
both can live with.

We cannot urge you strongly enough to try
negotiation before hiring an attorney. About 40% of our negotiations
with applicants are successful. We win another 10% through regulatory
agency negotiations, while discussions with elected officials and agency
directors allows another 30% of our clients to win adoption of their
Equitable Solution.

Applicant Negotiations:
We assume the advice provided in the preceding section of this webpage has allowed
you to find one or more potential Equitable Solutions. If it
has then contact the applicant. Make it clear your goal is to find an
Equitable Solution. Present the potential Solution(s) you've
identified and request an opportunity to discuss each in person.

During the meeting listen very carefully to any
objections the applicant has to your proposed solution. Resist the
temptation to interpret these as "I don't want to negotiate." Instead,
what you're probably hearing are initial concerns that may eventually be resolved.
There's also a good chance the applicant will propose other Equitable
Solutionsthat will be as or more effective then yours but are easier
for the applicant to adopt. It shouldn't matter how an impact is
resolved as long as the solution is effective over the life of the project.

If you reach agreement then ask the applicant to modify
project plans accordingly. Also ask that they request that regulatory agencies make the
Equitable Solution(s) permit conditions. This increases the
likelihood of a Solution being fully implemented then maintained over the
coming decades. Further advice on negotiating with the applicant can
be found in Chapter 37
of our free book.

Regulatory Agency Negotiations:
If you fail to reach agreement with the applicant, yet still believe your
Equitable Solution is fair and reasonable, then seek the support of
agency staff overseeing those permit-approvals most relevant to your
concerns. Also, you should seek to preserve your legal rights by beginning
the initial actions presented on the
CEDS Smart Legal Strategies webpage.

Most government agencies are used to negotiating with
applicants and citizens to resolve issues. You'll find staff far more
willing to work with you if you make it clear that your goal is not to Kill
The Project but to resolve specific concerns through an Equitable
Solution.

As with the applicant,

forward your potential Solution(s) and request an opportunity to
discuss each in person with the staff person reviewing the project. If
they feel the solution makes sense and they're willing to make it a permit
condition then great. However, its usually not that simple.
Frequently a solution will need to be adjusted so it fits within the limits
of what the agency can require. As with applicant negotiations stay
very open when working with staff. After all, your goal is to resolve
an impact and not to win the adoption of your pet solution. Further
advice on working with staff can be found in
Chapter 38.

If staff agrees your concerns are genuine and your solution
makes sense, but say they lack the authority to require it, then try
negotiating with your elected representatives or other higher
decision-makers.

Elected Officials & Other Decision-Makers:
It never ceases to amaze us how often elected officials and agency heads
come up with creative ways of resolving a problem. This is why meeting with
both your elected representatives and agency directors is critical to
success. In fact, these are probably the most important discussions.

Why?

Well, in your conversations with the applicant and
staff you've been advocating Equitable Solutions rather then
stopping the project. You should find that this approach has greatly
increased the willingness of both elected and appointed officials to work
with you. And between scrutiny by the applicant and staff the solution
should be thoroughly vetted, at least from a technical perspective. In
other words, you should now be confident it will work.

You're probably approaching the officials because the
applicant has refused to implement the solution and staff feel they lack the
authority to require it.

If the officials agree that they do lack the authority to
require your Equitable Solution then ask
if they would be willing to:

talk with the applicant about implementing the
solution voluntarily;

change the law to provide the necessary authority; or

work with staff experts and others to come up with
other solutions which may be equally effective and fall within their
legal authority.

Further advice on winning the
support of elected officials and other decision-makers can be found in
Chapter 39.
Advice on changing the law is provided in
Chapter 41.

However, there's a very good chance that within a week
or so of meeting with the elected officials or agency heads the applicant or
staff will resume negotiations, culminating in an agreement to adopt the
Equitable Solution. If this doesn't happen then its time to employ
Winning Through
Public Opinion.

If you genuinely believe that a truly Equitable
Solution exists to resolve your concerns that is also fair to the
applicant, then you are in an excellent position to win through the court of
public opinion, which is far less expensive then a court of law.

Most development companies, their consultants, attorneys,
and others practice in a relatively small area (one or two counties or
cities). Their success
hinges to a large degree on how they are perceived by elected officials,
other decision-makers, review staff, and the public at-large. If you have proposed a
reasonable Equitable Solution yet they refuse to adopt the
solution, then their public image diminishes, particularly if the impact to
you, your neighbors or the environment is obvious and excessive.

The public opinion effort should focus on a single
decision-maker or decision-making body with the authority to require
implementation of your Equitable Solution. But be certain to
craft a positive message, such as: We know our elected officials want
to do the right thing. Let's provide the public support they need to
do their job.

Initially ask
those who live near the site to join with you in urging the decision-maker
to act. Expand the effort by reaching out to others who may be
indirectly effected. It is likely others in your town or county are
affected by the same impact but at other sites. You should ask these
folks to contact the decision-maker in hopes of safeguarding both your
neighborhood and theirs.

These are but a few of many ways for convincing
decision-makers that the future holds only one outcome - an ever increasing
number of people who are wondering why they refuse to solve an obvious
problem.

Further
advice on winning through public opinion can be found in
Chapter 36.

Each year countless individuals, homeowner associations,
and environmental groups initiate legal action to protect their
homes, neighborhoods, and natural areas. Yet CEDS research shows that
most get very little for their time and money. Fortunately, our
research has also revealed a better way, which we call Smart Legal
Strategies. When combined with our Equitable
Solutions approach, Smart Legal Strategies triple citizen
and association success at a fraction of the cost.

Each development project may
require a dozen or more permits or other approvals (rezoning, special exception, conditional
use permit, waiver, variance, wetland permit, etc.). Smart Legal Strategies consist of a series of actions designed to
identifyTHEpermit-approval which offers the best opportunity to:

require implementation of an
Equitable Solution as a
condition of an approval, or

stop a truly bad project by blocking the issuance of
a critical permit-approval.

Again, the first step in

Smart Legal Strategies is to
identify all required approvals then research each to determine which
provides the best opportunity for success. While this may seem like common
sense few newcomers to this business and far too many attorneys fail to perform this
critical
research. Instead, limited resources are exhausted opposing the first
permit-approval which comes up for a hearing.
Detailed advice on how to conduct permit research is provided on our
Smart Legal Strategies
webpage.

We urge you
NOT to hire an attorney before completing the
research.

Why?

Because you won't know what type of attorney you need -
land use, zoning, environmental, etc. - until you've done this research.
More importantly, you won't have the background needed to interview
prospective attorneys (we urge you to screen at least three) to learn who
will provide the best representation and how to keep legal fees at a
minimum without lowering the probability of success.

About two-thirds of the citizens we help take our free
assistance and run with the campaign on their own. The other third hire us
to manage a portion or all of their campaign. This is how we make the funds
needed to stay in business. So if you feel that winning a development battle
requires more time then you can spare, give us a call to discuss the cost of
having CEDS take over the more difficult or time-consuming aspects of the
campaign.

If you're uncertain how to get a campaign started then
consider retaining CEDS to perform an Initial Strategy Analysis. For further detail visit:

Over the past ten years CEDS has conducted intensive
research across the country on what does and doesn't work for citizens
seeking to resolve concerns about proposed development projects. The
Equitable Solution approach evolved from the following major
findings:

CEDS
research shows that while one in 70 projects are temporarily halted
through the conventional approach, the applicant then revises plans to
address legal defects, resubmits the plans, and the plans are approved.
The project then gets built. Only 1 in 200 projects is stopped
permanently. While the odds are generally against stopping a
project, there are some proposals which are so severely flawed they
should never be approved. The Equitable Solutions
approach increases the likelihood of stopping these bad projects by ten
fold.

About 40% of citizens employ the conventional
Kill The Project approach. Most of these citizens have minimal
experience with land use, zoning, or environmental law. They tend to
exhaust their limited resources contesting the first permit-approval the
project requires. This is almost always a mistake. Citizens
pursuing this conventional approach spend an average of $10,000 -
occasionally more then $100,000 - mostly getting very little for their
money.
Most projects require a dozen or more permits or other approvals.
A key component of the Equitable Solutions approach is an
evaluation of all permits-approvals to determine which provides the best
opportunity for success.

Another 40% of citizens seek to resolve specific
concerns about a development project. Examples of specific concerns
include increased traffic, overcrowded schools, inadequate parking,
visual impacts, loss of open space, and drainage-pollution issues. Half
of these citizens (20% of the total) negotiate with the applicant,
government staff, or elected officials to change project plans in ways
that will prevent impacts yet allows the applicant to get most of what
they want. CEDS calls these changes Equitable Solutions. These
20% of citizens win their negotiations about half the time. They tend to
have a much better (realistic) attitude about growth management and many
go on to become active volunteers with grass-roots groups or to serve on
boards, commissions, and councils.

Our research shows that most of the concerns
citizens have about proposed development projects can be resolved
through an Equitable Solution. But we've also found that
many newcomers to land use advocacy are unaware that effective, reliable
win-win solutions are generally available. Because of this lack of
awareness newcomers believe that the only way to win is through the
conventional Kill The Project approach. Of course, this
simply isn't true.

The remaining 20% make some effort towards either
stopping a project or resolving specific concerns, but tend to give up
quickly. A large portion of these citizens assume that if they cannot
afford to hire a lawyer there's no way they can win. These citizens
report getting very little for their effort and few continue to
participate in advocacy.

he preceding research findings plus more then 30 years
of helping citizens nationwide with land use and environmental issues,
allowed CEDS to come up with a new approach based upon
Equitable Solutions. We know from our own experience that this approach
will:

Following are a few examples of the victories possible
with Equitable Solutions. CEDS was an active participant in all of
these examples.

Smart Growth:

Everyone has heard the phrase
Smart Growth. But you may not know that Smart Growth was a
result of Equitable Solutions & Smart Legal Strategies in action. In the
mid-1990s, the Sierra Club led a fight to save Chapman's Forest - 2,000
acres of highly-sensitive forest near Washington, D.C. Chapman's Forest
became a focal point - a poster child - for the many ills of dumb growth.
The campaign generated so much public support that it allowed former
Maryland Governor Glendening to preserve all 2,000 acres and he instituted
Smart Growth as state policy and law. Of course,
Smart Growth is now a cornerstone of responsible growth management
nationally. And it all started because of the highly-successful execution of
Equitable Solutions at Chapman's Forest.

Through-Traffic Nixed:

Southfork Court is a quiet, dead-end street with 14 townhomes. The Court is
more then a place where residents park their cars. Children play in the
Court. An annual picnic and other gatherings are held on the Court. But all
this would've changed with plans to extend the Court into a through-road to
serve a proposed development project. This action would have increased
traffic on the Court by 800%. County policy required a second means of
emergency vehicle access into the proposed development. An extension of
Southfork Court was the only way of meeting this requirement. CEDS research
of past decisions revealed an equitable solution. After extensive
negotiations with the applicant and County officials, they agreed to extend
the Court and place a gate across it which only emergency personnel could
open. This solution provided the second means of emergency access without
any increase in normal traffic volume, thus preserving the tranquility of Southfork Court.

Visual Impact Resolved:

Rural residents were deeply troubled by a proposal to build new houses
within view of their homes. They feared the loss of a natural view, light
trespass from street lamps, and glare from the floodlights new homeowners
tend to plaster all over their houses. After our clients threatened to get
the site downzoned (a real possibility) the applicant agreed to forego the
street lights, place a covenant in the homeowners association bylaws
restricting outside lighting, and to provide the additional landscaping
needed to preserve the view. These points were set forth in a written
agreement which the applicant and the rural residents signed. The agreement
also required making it a binding condition of County development approvals.
This makes government responsible for enforcement - not the rural residents.
The applicant also reimbursed the rural residents for the $2,000 they paid
CEDS to win this victory.

$500,000 in Aquatic Resource Protection:

A massive shopping center was proposed for a site at the head of a highly
sensitive river. Area citizens treasured the river but were not necessarily
opposed to the shopping center. However, they were very concerned about the
thousands of gallons of contaminated runoff which would flow from the
shopping center into the river. CEDS helped local activists demonstrate
widespread community support for preserving the river and organized a legal
team which convinced the applicant they were in for a long fight. The
applicant then offered to put in some additional runoff pollution controls,
costing about $100,000. We eventually got them to agree to what was really
needed - $500,000 in aquatic resource protection measures.

Globally Rare Wetland Saved:

Wade's Savanna is one of seven
Central Coastal Plain Basin Swamps in the world. A mining company had
proposed excavating a 70-foot deep pit covering 140-acres next to Wade's
Savanna. The resulting extraction of sand and gravel would have dewatered
(and killed) Wade's Savanna. After partial execution of a
strategy developed
by CEDS the applicant became convinced that they stood little chance of
getting mining permits. They then sold the site below market value to a
preservation organization.

Flawed Infill Stopped:

Suburban residents were concerned by a proposal to build five houses on lots
much smaller then theirs. The houses would have been unduly close and posed
other compatibility issues. CEDS discovered the applicant needed to run a
sewerline through the property owned by the residents. The residents are now
using this leverage to negotiate resolution of each concern with the
applicant.